March 2012

Eight years ago the Safeway supermarket chain built an exemplary urban store in downtown Portland. With housing above the store for density (a first for the company), a LEED rating showing its sustainability and a simple, elegant design by GBD Architects, it showed a nationwide corporation with the smarts and nimbleness to not simply build a cookie-cutter store but adapt to Portland.

“We wanted an urban store with a vibrant streetscape,” Safeway public affairs director Bridget Flanagan told me for a Metropolis magazine story back in 2004, “a store that worked for the community.”

Apparently that was a one-time thing, for the new Safeway on Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, whatever new amenities it may have, is a much diferent story.

Living just off Hawthorne Boulevard for the past 14 years, I shopped countless times at the old, circa-1966 Safeway at 2800 SE Hawthorne. Chances are I'll shop there many times in the future.

But when those shopping trips happen, I'll always be holding my nose. There's just no other way to put it: this is one seriously ugly monstrosity of a grocery store.

Hawthorne Safeway (photo by Brian Libby)

This Safeway offers a lot more space and grocery/food offerings. By burying the old front parking lot underground and building a bigger building all the way up to the street, the store is going from about 33,000 square feet to over 55,000. You can be sure the old Safeway never had a sushi bar, but this one does. The old deli counter with fried chicken and stale Chinese food has been replace by a much more expansive offering of prepared foods. The old Starbucks kiosk inside has become a full-fledged Starbucks with seating and even a fireplace.

But even from blocks away, the Safeway feels needlessly oversized for the neighborhood with its prison-like pair of towers bracketing the front edges of the buiding. The building is just a concrete box, yet a neo-historic facade has been affixed to the front with about as much authenticity as an Old West movie town made in Hollywood. For goodness sake, while visiting recently I even encountered one portion of the northern facade in which an awning extended over windowless concrete block (as you can see in the photo at the top of this post).

Theoretically, it's a more urban store because the parking is underground. But it could not feel much more suburban in its bland stylistic ubiquity, especially given how the added density only led to a bigger store, not a mixed-use building with offices or housing above. Admittedly the zoning didn't allow the latter, but that might have led Safeway to build something less outsized from the single-family homes in the surrounding neighborhood. It's as if the company had two small parking spots and parked one huge SUV there.

The store is officially designed by Lake Oswego firm Benner StangeStrange (lead architect) and supported by the Portland office of Bellevue firm Mulvanny G2 (architect of record). But I consider Safeway to be the culprit here, for the Hawthorne Safeway is just another unit in its assembly line of "Lifestyle Stores" being built around the country that feature added prepared foods and earth-toned interiors. It's true there isn't the same feeling of oppressive fluorescent lights, but there's also less natural light coming into the store. How could you in 2012, in Portland - a sustainable capitol and a largely overcast climate - tear down one store and build another with less natural light?

And by the way, this Safeway will not, unlike the one downtown, apply for LEED certification. So you can't even say this ugly duckling possess an inner swan. It's apparently as bloated as it looks.

Safeway exit door at center-front (photo by Brian Libby)

At the front of the store, as with the back entrance of the renovated Fred Meyer just up Hawthorne, wayfinding is a comedy of errors. Just when one reaches a giant set of glass double doors, it becomes apparent this is only the exit. To enter the store via the official entrance can take one on a winding, counter-intuitive path. Who says a wide glass door has to be only an entry or exit point? At the corner of the building's front, just where the architecture leads you to a door, there's a concrete wall. It all makes you feel like a rat in a maze.

It wouldn't have taken Safeway much effort to create a more nuanced design that better fits the Hawthorne district. All they would have had to do was work with the neighborhood and listen to what shoppers want, then to hire a local Portland firm and give them the freedom to truly engage in the act of design: not to simply put lipstick on a pig by affixing neo-historic faux facades to the front of the concrete box but to truly design a store from the inside out and outside in. Chances are the architects at Benner Strange and Mulvanny G2 did as much as they could given Safeways parameters. Just make our spaceship fit the landing pad.

Safeway could easily have looked at Portland and learned from a local chain exploding with growth by doing things the right way: New Seasons Market. Maybe this isn't a direct comparison, for New Seasons caters to higher-income shoppers for whom things like organic produce are a baseline, not a luxury. Yet beyond the groceries or the demographics, New Seasons builds stores teeming with natural light that, in most cases, feel effortlessly urban even without having any housing or offices above their stores. It's all about having designers and clients who listen to the needs of customers and communities.

Interior of Hawthorne Safeway (photos by Brian Libby)

Like I said, I'll probably still shop at the Hawthorne Safeway. The cost of food, even basic items, has increased substantially over the past decade. Safeway, as with chains like Costco or even Fred Meyer, can offer more competitive pricess on most groceries than New Seasons, Zupans or other local higher-end supermarkets. Yet that's no reason the chain had to scrimp on design or act so heavy-handed and distant. Whether it's the company's refusal to sign a neighborhood agreement with residents living near the store or how this Hawthorne Safeway is basically the same as any in its chain, the company is epitomizing the kind of ham-fisted, tone-deaf behavior that has coalesced much of America against giant corporations.

In the weeks ahead, Portlanders will decide between three main candidates to succeed Sam Adams as mayor of the city: former City Council member Charlie Hales, New Seasons Market co-founder Eileen Brady, and state legislator Jefferson Smith. Design is only one of numerous issues each candidate will weigh in on, but it affects a wide variety of causes and concerns, from economic development to livability to arts and culture. The following conversation with Smith is intended as the first in a series of talks with each the three candidates.

A descendant of Mormonism founder Joseph Smith, Jefferson Smith, 39, was born in Portland and graduated from Grant High School. After earning his bachelor's degree from the University of Oregon, Smith graduated at the top of his Harvard Law School class. He only lasted a few days at the prestigious New York law firm that hired him - because when Smith was assigned the case of a tobacco company, he quit rather than represent them. Returning to Oregon, he became best known as the founder of The Bus Project, a nonprofit effort to register young voters. He now represents East Portland in Oregon's House of Representatives. But Smith may be best known for culling comments from his fellow Oregon legislators on the floor of the House into an alternate version of Rick Astley's 1987 hit "Never Gonna Give You Up":

PORTLAND ARCHITECTURE: Architects have been particularly hard hit by the recession, but they also embody the creative class that city leaders often seek to attract. What’s your message to the profession?

JEFFERSON SMITH: I’d say a few things. This city’s success as well as its national and global relevance would be largely linked to our ability to compete in the knowledge economy. Architecture and design are one of the best places for us to be able to compete.

I’d have two messages in addition to that obvious one. We should figure out how to lead the field in retrofits and rehabilitations, in a cost constrained environment. New edifice can be harder to sell. In a cost constrained environment, even our most ambitious plans, even those where aesthetics are deeply important, are strengthened if they can also make a long-term cost savings case. We need stretch projects. I think we need to demonstrate we are on the leading edge of retrofit and rehabilitation.

One thing that occurred to me a few days ago during the candidates’ forum on historic preservation was something Hanna Arendt wrote in a book, The Edges of Totalitarianism: that engineering can do a lot to help us figure out how and can do less to help us figure out why. Over the last 30 to 40 years, this city has become among the best and has become renowned for thinking about the how and even the what. We have to re-commit to our why. We have to re-establish the motivating energy behind what makes Portland special, and not merely rely upon the energy of decades past.

You were born in east Portland, spent your elementary school years in South Pasadena, returned to Portland for high school (Grant), then attended the University of Oregon and Harvard Law School. How does that variety of urban experiences shape your perspective on cities and particularly Portland?

Portland is more human. So much of our city has neighborhoods that work, that are nearly self-sufficient. So many people can live here without not operating an automobile. There are various elements that make it more comfortable for middle class people. In LA and New York, my guess is if you want to live there you want to be rich.

What’s your take on the Oregon Sustainability Center: can it go forward, and should it?

I think the Sustainability Center had two challenges, either of which could have been overcome, but the combination of which appears insurmountable. The best arguments for the OSC are that if PSU is going to grow, it needs to grow up. And if it’s going to grow up, it shouldn’t be a concrete slab. It should be interesting. The other best argument is that for the city to build upon its global reputation for sustainable development, it needs to have reach projects, so we can show what we’ve learned and have people pay us for the privilege. The challenge I have is it did not sufficiently, at least in public communications, make the cost adjustments. Having a Sustainability Center with so many questions about financial sustainability is a significant challenge. That’s all the first challenge: it failed to make the cost case. The second challenge is a bad economy, Tea Party Congress, grumpy taxpayers, and green jobs backlash. And either one of those might have been overcome. But the combination seems to be proving fatal. The case I would make to designers and architects and planners is to think yes, how can we get reach projects, and how can we do that while showing our costs consciousness?

What are some of your favorite buildings or spaces in Portland?

I think so little about preference, I really do, in terms of my own enjoyment. I love Grant High School. I love the front of Grant. I’m biased - not only because I went there but also because I have a granite quote on the ground there. I’m inspired by the story of Waterfront Park. I’m inspired by Johnson Creek and salmon returning. I was proud the first time I rode to the top of Rocky Butte as a kid. I proposed to my wife in the Rose Test Garden at Washington Park. Pioneer Square’s too obvious but I’m glad it exists. I like the Concordia business district. It is a small business district that works. It’s humble and cool at the same time.

The proposed Columbia Crossing has been the most controversial major building project of our time. Is it surprising that you’re the only one of the three major candidates to oppose it?

I was not shocked, but I was disappointed. The story of this city was shaped, almost launched, by the decision to replace a freeway plan with parks and transit. But today this city and region have been spending the bulk of discretionary transportation lobbying clout on a highway mega-project for Clark County commuters. I simply don’t see how the current project gets built now, even to comport with height requirements, let alone with financial reality.

I’ve been disappointed that it has been treated as a yes or no question, when it is in reality a priority question. And it’s not just a bridge. A bridge would be $700-900 million. Retrofitting the current bridge would be $200 million. I’m disappointed that the project seems to access so little of our imagination. It seems we’ve learned almost nothing in 40 years. And I am surprised that after 40 years of debate between Robert Moses and Portland, Oregon, we’re somehow letting Moses win.

I think an early watershed decision that was apparently a very close call and a bad one, it turns out, was committing ourselves to a single-pipe solution. Because that asks all sorts of unswered question about the Rose Quarter, about I—84. If you want seismic safety, don’t commit yourself to one thing. I’ve sat through more presentations on this than more than almost any policy maker I know. I’ve sat through them as an interested human being, as a member of the Trans & Econ Development Committee in the House, and as a candidate for mayor, wanting very much to have the support of the construction trades who want to build the project. And I remain befuddled and confused.

I was a bit surprised when, as confused as I’ve been, when one candidate said, “let’s build it, you guys,” and the other says, “we’re going to do it in the first year of my administration.’ I think we need to approach it skeptically and humbly.

What about the Rose Quarter and Memorial Coliseum, where a plan is being put in place to restore the Coliseum and revitalize the district?

That’s another place I’m befuddled by, and passively and actively looking for advice. It is where my historic preservation instincts run up against my economic hunchery. I have more of an emotional connection to Memorial Coliseum than I have to the Rose Garden, as somebody who went to Blazer games as a kid. My challenge is I’m not aware of many places that have two sports arenas enclosed adjacent, and one major league team and one professional team between them, that play in roughly the same season. While I have had some criticism of what has seemed like a meandering process, I also want to be humble in recognizing that they’re facing a challenging question. I am interested in an elegant solution, but also recognizing that it is not clear to me what decision will still be there.

The question is, is the fact that there aren’t too many places of that nature with two arenas a lesson that that can’t work a lesson that that can’t work, or that we have something special

What do you think?

Well, I'm biased on this question, but: Portland is the only US city with this two-arena configuration, and it’s already proven financially viable. Both arenas are full over 150 nights a year, and events like the Dew Sports tour came here specifically because of the double venue. Great cities don’t tear down world-class architecture, and besides, the Rose Quarter needs density, and that should come from converting its surface parking lots and parking garages.

The art form that has captured my attention most over the last years has been high-quality episodic television, from The Wire to Deadwood to Mad Men to The Sopranos to Downton Abbey. I grew up going as a kid to plays and musicals. I sang ‘Old Man River’ word for word by the time I was nine. My grandpa was a patron. So we would go and eat prime rib and then catch a show.

For movies I’m largely a sucker. I love Hoosiers. With the campaign, unfortunately I’ve never watched so little March Madness. In terms of classical and traditional art, what’s interesting is as a younger guy I had less appreciation for what was known as modern art, people like Picasso and Mark Rothko. It was actually going to Italy and being knocked off my shoes by Rome and by Florence and by Venice and the museums. After that, I appreciated abstract art and modern art more than ever in my life, and the appreciation remained. I think it was from seeing the progression of art. After seeing my upteenth chuch, I had a sense of how refreshing it must have been to see paint without obviously intentional angles, and seeing free form and free color.

You mention cities of the Italian renaissance like Florence and Venice. They became great cities for art and culture after becoming robust commercial centers. Is there a lesson for Portland there?

My impression is that the great artistic periods in these Italian city-states were largely driven by wealthy patrons who could fund the art. Without being a historian, my rough sense is that artistic greatness followed economic greatness. Which to some degree followed military greatness. Today, in a globally competitive knowledge economy, when design itself is among the most valued elements, it might be that great economies follow great art. It might be the other way around.

What might be your priorities for running the city?

There’s an argument about whether this city should continue to be weird and creative and cutting edge, or whether we should get down to the basics and take care of the essentials: whether we should have a tram or whether we should pave roads. The case I want to make to Portland is that we embrace and leverage our creativity and our innovation to address the basics, to do the essentials, to do what must be done. And it isn’t what I want to say to the architecture community, it’s what I want to ask them: how can we do that together?

Any chance I get I need to make the case I can lead this city. It is valuable to have a mix of entrepreneurial, executive and legislative and budgetary experience. We can improve some of the budgeting practices of the city. We can take a page from the state in taking the head of the office of management and finance and make that person essentially the chief operating officer of the city. We can prioritize money better by focusing on front-line services and saving on management. We can focus on projects we can get done and are good investments. And we can focus on doing those things very well that only government can do.

UC Riverside School of Medicine research buiding (photo by Lara Swimmer)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

This post marks the beginning of a new Portland Architecture continuing series, in which from time to time we will round up recent awards and honors bestowed upon the local design community.

First up is Portland firm SRG Partnership, which received a Special Mention for Sustainability in R&D Magazine’s 46th annual international Laboratory of the Year competition. Completed in 2011, the 60,000 square-foot, three-story facility is designed to achieve LEED Gold certification from the US Green Building Council.

Laboratories are some of architecture's biggest energy hogs, with heavy-duty ventilation systems and energy use, but the Riverside project is predicted to use 60 percent less energy then a facility designed to code, which also will save $500,000 per year in operational costs. The space is also full of natural light and natural materials like wood, both of which also are missing from most labs. Back when SRG won a merit award from AIA/Portland last fall for the lab, the jury called the project, "a strong concept that pulls from projects such as the Salk Institute," referring to Louis Kahn's masterpiece in La Jolla, California.

Meanwhile, Portland architect Hal Ayotte of Fletcher Farr Ayotte is the recipient of the University of Oregon’s 2012 George McMath Award. The awards ceremony will take place Wednesday, May 30 from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the UO in Portland White Stag Block at 70 NW Couch Street. Proceeds from ticket sales to the award luncheon ($50) will benefit financial aid programs for the university’s historic preservation students.

Ayotte's 40 years of professional practice include numerous renovations of historic landmarks, especially the National Park Service to the Oregon University System. Ayotte oversa projects like the reconstruction of Crater Lake Lodge, for example, winner of numerous local and regional American Institute of Architects design awards, as well as Mount Rainier National Park’s Paradise Inn, Multnomah Falls Lodge in the Columbia Corge, the Salem Passenger Rail Depot; the Marcus Whitman Hotel in Walla Walla, the State of Oregon Library in Salem, and the White Stag Block in Portland for the University of Oregon.

Also honored recently was Soderstrom Architects. The firm's design of the University of Portland bell tower received the Masonry & Ceramic Tile Institute’s Hammurabi Award for excellence in masonry. The Bell Tower, which sits beside a Pietro Belluschi-designed chuch, was designed by Dan Danielson of Soderstrom.

Bell Tower, University of Portland (image courtesy of the university)

“The jury found the level of craftsmanship to be outstanding,” wrote Randy Nishimura, one of three jurors for the Hammurabi Awards. “The integration of brick and precast concrete elements, and the application of the Flemish bond patterning are particularly successful. The texture, coursing, and brick patterns all complement one another in the service of creating a unified whole. The result is a complete, finished little jewel.”

The award was announced at a luncheon at Portland’s Governor Hotel on Thursday, March 1, 2012. Franz Hall, also designed by Soderstrom Architects, also received Hammurabi Award in 1997. The Bell Tower, dedicated in 2009, is the realization of a longtime vision by University benefactors and administrators to both showcase the University’s Catholic character and serve as a landmark symbol for the campus community.

In sustainability news, this year's BetterBricks Awards, honoring the region's innovative designers, builders and clients achieving high degrees of sustainability and energy efficiency, included an award in the Design-Engineer category for PAE Consulting Engineers' Steve Reidy, who had an inspiring message about how occupant comfort is an essential part of good design.

"We spend a lot of our lives as engineers – I do – talking about building metrics, building performance, goals," Reidy said. "But really the thing that inspires me is kind of maybe a little different as an engineer. I’m looking for, and I really excited about how a building feels. And everybody in this room will sit and say, ‘What does that mean?’ And it means something different for every person. Some person may think lighting is important, or space comfort. I spend a lot of time talking about temperature. It may be the size and shape of the room, it may be the architecture of the space, maybe the finishes and how a space looks. But the most important thing is, when you’re in a space that performs, when your project performs and you have occupants that go in there and say, ‘This space feels great,’ that’s when I’m inspired. That’s when I really feel that I’ve done the work I was meant to do, which is to bring those buildings forward and to put the occupants into those buildings. I think at that point they feel ignited. And I’m really excited when I go to my clients and feel that. That’s my excitement."

And finally tonight, Portland architect, Brian Cavanaugh has received a 2012 Young Architects Award from the American Institute of Architects. The award is given to individuals who have shown exceptional leadership and made significant contributions to the profession in an early stage of their architectural career. Most recently, his firm, Architecture Building Culture, received a 2011 AIA/Portland Design Award for the interior renovation of the Lubavitch Foundation of British Columbia headquarters in Vancouver.

“Brian possesses a sophisticated and creative mind coupled with a deep commitment to furthering the profession’s role in building rich and propelling communities through design excellence, advocacy, and proactive leadership,” the jury wrote in its comments for the Young Architects Award.

The third installment of the Architect’s Questionnaire features Portland architect Robert Leeb of Leeb Architects, a full service architectural and planning firm founded in 1977. Notable projects included the eight story, 134-unit, Streetcar Lofts building in the Pearl District and the Garage at Station Place, which encloses 413 parking spaces with custom stainless steel and is complete with a large landscaped atrium.

Two summers ago I drove up from Los Angeles to Portland to drop in on Robert Leeb’s office on Oak Street near the Waterfront to talk about the makings and evolution of the architectural fabric of Portland. Initially drawn to the phenomenal images and the tactile nature of his built projects, it is a delight to share Mr. Leeb’s words within the following questionnaire.

Portland Architecture: When did you first become interested in architecture as a possible career?

Robert Leeb: As a child I was always building things -- tree houses, forts and playing around new construction sites. I was interested in building models of planes and ships. When I got into high school in Chicago, we had a number of career days with Chicago architects and this got me very interested in being an architect. My father was an engineer and I trended that way.

Where did you study architecture and how would you rate the experience?

I studied at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago. The curriculum was developed at the Bauhaus and it was very disciplined with terrific people in the program and great classmates. Most of us worked part time for architects from the time we were sophomores on and it was a really dynamic period then being exposed to Chicago architecture and architects practicing and doing good work. That was a great experience as well as living in an urban environment and going to architecture school at the same time.

The Hoyt Square Condominiums on NW 19th and NW Hoyt, was designed for a competition sponsored by the City of Portland and this helped kick-start my office. I was working out of my house and beat out some of Portland’s larger firms for the site. The Street Car Lofts in the Pearl District is another good example of urban architecture we have worked on. Those are the kinds of projects I enjoy the most.

Who has been an important mentor among your colleagues?

John Heinrich and George Schipporeit, (Schipporeit and Heinrich) in Chicago. They had gone to IIT and had worked for Mies. Their biggest project at the time was Lake Point Tower, a 70 story apartment building on Lake Michigan. Working with them was my graduate school. When I first moved here I worked for Saul Zaik and Jim Miller (Zaik/Miller Associates). Both were great to work with and they helped my family and me make the transition to Oregon and introduced me to their many significant Northwest Projects.

What part of the job do you like best, and as an architect what do you think you most excel at?

What’s most exciting to me is taking all of the diverse issues relative to the work we do and coalescing them into a concept and design that has a strong sense of place. Also I enjoy working with good clients and creating lasting projects that are a responsible part of the urban fabric of Portland.

What are some Portland buildings (either new or historic) that you most admire?

I have a high regard for A.E. Doyle’s work from the Central Library to his houses on the Oregon Coast. I think the early housing stock of Portland is also very wonderful. I just went to a lecture about Emil Schacht at the Bosco-Milligan Architectural Heritage Center. He did many houses in Portland between 1895 and 1915. We lived in one of his 1906 houses in Portland Heights. That period of Portland’s history created the neighborhoods and the great housing stock that has anchored the city and that is exciting to me.

Other Oregon buildings I admire are the Timberline Lodge and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Gordon House at the Oregon Garden. There is a lot of good solid work in Portland. I love the building across the street from my office, the Lawrence Building (306 SW First Avenue). I think it is a really elegant building.

What is your favorite building outside of Portland and besides any you’ve worked on?

I just visited the Milwaukee Art Museum addition by Santiago Calatrava and that really energized me and was very exciting. I was there for a Frank Lloyd Wright exhibit, and found the building created a lot of energy for the people visiting the museum.

Is there a local architect or firm you think is unheralded or deserves more credit?

One thing that is special about Portland is that it does recognize and reward a lot of the young firms. I felt that way when I started out, the feeling being -- “If you have a good idea, come on down and let’s try it.” That is one of the great things about Portland, it’s a town open to new ideas and I think new ideas come with young architects and I think a lot of them have done very well and I’m pleased about that.

What would you like to see change about Portland’s built environment in the long term?

The idea of denser housing and services along light rail and creating more walkable/bikeable areas is very positive. I know it’s a European model, but given the need as a society to sustain ourselves, the more we can do to move in that direction I think the better off we will be. Preserving as much open space as possible and creating denser nodes along different transportation arterials, I think is going to happen and be a good trend.

Hoyt Square, Portland (image courtesy Leeb Architects)

How would you rate the performance of local government like the Portland Development Commission, or the development and planning bureaus?

We have had really good luck with these departments. The people who work at PDC and the Planning Department are very dedicated and very bright and want the city to be a better place. I have never had a significant problem with them and have always enjoyed the interaction. Even when they try to push the architecture, I’ve never felt it to be unreasonable.

Would you rather live in a South Waterfront condo, a craftsman bungalow in Laurelhurst, a warehouse loft in the North Mississippi district or a mid-century ranch in the West Hills?

Neither. Right now I’m living in a more rural area. I would say probably the bungalow or the loft. My children both live in the Northeast and they love it, I enjoy going over there, the neighborhoods are great. I love the energy that happens in SE and NE. My wife and I enjoy raising our goats too much to move.

Who is a famous architect you’d like to see design a building in Portland?

I would like to see Calatrava do something in Portland. We have bridges that have always been a big part of the city and what he’s done for some of the transportation centers and pedestrian bridges are very exciting and visionary.

Calatrava's Milwaukie Art Museum (image courtesy Wikipedia Commons)

Which would you rather be responsible for: an ugly LEED platinum building or a beautiful modernist energy hog?

Probably neither…I would like to do a beautiful modern energy efficient building, I don’t think anybody shoots for any one of those two.

Things that impress me within the built environment -- I have an affinity for landscape and landscape architecture. I have an interest in parks, and some of the new public spaces. I love to work with plant materials and work collaboratively with landscape architects. I’m also a big fan of fine art; painting, drawing, sculpture and printmaking.

Portland and Boston have had numerous connections over the years. The original coinflip that gave Portland its name (after the city in Maine) could alternatively have seen it named Boston. One of Portland's largest corporate headquarters is Adidas, which owns Boston area-based Reebok. Boston may be to New York what Portland is to Seattle: the smaller but sometimes scrappier of two regional cultural capitols. After the Portland Trail Blazers' greatest star, Bill Walton, parted with the franchise a couple years after winning the team won the 1977 NBA championship and he the 1978 MVP, he eventually made his way to the Boston Celtics, winning a second title there and a sixth-man-of-the-year award.

Enter Woburn, Massachusetts' Eastern Real Estate a privately held commercial real estate firm founded in 2000, with a development portfolio totaling over $1 billion. Eastern announced today that it will acquire the United States Custom House for on NW Broadway for $4.74 million from the Government Services Administration.

In our last installment of this ongoing saga, in 2011, local developer PREM Group was unable to finalize its purchase from the government after agreeing to a $2.75 million sale in 2010; PREM had initially beat out other interested parties such as local developer Joe Weston. The dissolution of the sale may have had something to do with the amount of maintenance the building may need. As Wendy Coverwell reported in the Portland Business Journal last November, back in 1997, Sera Architects estimated the building needed $18 million to $24.3 million in repairs, in 2009 dollars.

The 78,838-square foot, four-story building encompasses a full block in the Pearl District, bounded by NW Broadway, Everett and Davis Streets, and NW Eighth Avenue. Originally built in 1901, it was designed by James Knox Taylor, who - ironically now given the current sale - had studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and designed many government buildings. Construction was supervised by local architect Edgar Lazarus, who also designed local/regional landmarks like Vista House at Crown Point in the Columbia River Gorge and one of the major buildings for the Lewis & Clark Exposition of 1905. The latter is particularly notable, because this world's fair marked one of the most important turning points in Portland's history: when the muddy streets, plank roads and Victorian houses of a large frontier town gave way to a major American city. The Custom House, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1974, expresses that growing ambition, with an Italian Renaissance Revival style: grafting the lines of quintessential historic city-states like Venice onto the DNA of a metropolis still in its infancy.

As its name indicates, for the building's first 67 years the US Custom Service was located there, before the agency moved next door to the post office in 1968 - itself a building now destined to be either reimagined or torn down with the letter carriers set to move out. For several years the Army Corps of Engineers had its offices in the Custom House, and then the Portland International School became one of a handful of potential candidates to nearly move in. It almost became home to the University of Oregon's Portland campus, which instead renovated the cast-iron White Stag Block along the waterfront at Naito Parkway and NW Couch Street. A major boutique hotel chain also had at one point joined the potential suitors.

In its press release, the developers seem to say the right things. “We are thrilled and honored to be the new stewards of this important piece of Portland history,” co-founder Brian Kelly of Eastern Real Estate is quoted as saying. “It is an absolute gem of the Pearl District and the city, and we look forward to the building’s active use on the North Park Blocks.” The key words there, of course, are stewards and active. But as we know, press releases and statements of intent only mean so much. And Eastern does have an interesting track record. Although their portfolio seems heavy on shopping and retail, which could easily mean a lot of ubiquitous chain stores, the company is widely known for converting the 1.2 million square foot former Wang Laboratories corporate headquarters in Lowell, Massachusetts into a multi-tenant office tower called Cross Point. On the website, the fact that the building was purchased for a mere $525,000 and sold four years later for over $100 million. So regardless of whether Eastern is successful, they not stay the owners forever.

Program-wise, the company has not yet indicated whether the Custom House will have a variety of tenants, just one, or a few. But the new owner seems to recognize that the building's value lies not in the structure itself, which needs repairs, but in its long-term value as a historic property of a large scale with the ability, like the Brewery Blocks, to attract hoardes of people. According to an Oregonian report by Elliot Njus published today, the company says tenants have not yet been determined.

The Custom House is also ideally situated on NW Broadway, the border between the tony Pearl District and the rougher but burgeoning Old Town, with downtown just a few blocks to the south. It's also just a few blocks from the trains of Union Station as well as the MAX line. It also looks out on the North Park Blocks, just across the street from a cluster of art galleries and the Museum of Contemporary Craft; 511 Broadway, itself being converted into a home for the Pacific Northwest College of Art, is also just a couple blocks down Broadway. Powell's Books and the Brewery Blocks are also an easy stroll, as are any number of cultural offerings, shops and public spaces.

GBD Architects, which has a now extensive history of green renovations in the Pearl District, such as the five-building Brewery Blocks mixed use development, the Portland Armory (now home to the Gerding Theater), and an in-progress renovation of the Meier & Frank warehouse into a headquarters for Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. KPFF Consulting Engineers is also on the team.

Perhaps I should begin with an apology. I'd like to write about Apple's proposed new downtown store on Yamhill Street, across from the Pioneer Place mall. And here's hoping it happens.

After all, not only is Apple a refreshing institution of great design in their computer hardware and electronics--I love my two current Apple computers, just as I loved my Apple II Plus when it became my first computer in the early 1980s, and my partner loves her iPhone--but their stores arguably lead the nation in handsome, smart retail design.

So why the apology? Well, Apple is sensitive and secretive sometimes, so much so that those at the city and the private sector involved with the project not only won't talk about it, but won't even acknowledge Apple is involved for fear of the Cupertino, California juggernaut pulling out of the project. So hopefully any speculation or criticisms I or others offer won't doom it.

Perhaps Apple has reason to be wary. In 2005, the company proposed a flagship store along the retail row of NW 23rd Avenue. But that neighborhood is an official historic district, triggering Historic Landmarks Commission review of the design. As Fred Leeson's Monday post indicated, there is an ongoing debate about whether new architecture should conform in scale, materials and other design facets to surrounding older buidings or whether it has license to be itself. Many, myself included, feel the Commission was being a bit silly to insist on tweaks to awnings or other aspects of the proposed design on 23rd, but Apple also pulled out of the project entirely rather than enter anything resembling compromise - which, in many cases, is what good design is all about. I'd say both the Landmarks Commission and Apple itself could have done better.

Maybe now is the chance to right that wrong. Apple seems to be proposing a new store on the site of the Saks building on SW Yamhill between Fourth and Fifth Avenues. Rather than renovating the two-story Saks structure, the proposal is to demolish it in favor of a single-story, glass-fronted Apple store set back from the sidewalk to include a small plaza.

The design, by Seattle/Pennsylvania firm Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (designer of numerous previous Apple stores, including a prominent one in Manhattan), was submitted to the city on February 17 as a formal Design Advice Request, and the Design Review board will consider the plans on March 15. According to the Design Advice Request, the Apple store would have a 165-foot-wide storefront (the largest of any Apple store) and a 17.5-foot-tall interior, with 9,000 square feet of public space.

The demolition or partial demolition of the Saks building seems curious. The structure obviously has a prominent location across from Pioneer Place mall, where Apple's current store exists in the underground portion. But it's not a very old building at all; Pioneer Place II, of which the building is a part, was completed in 2000. Would Apple consider replacing a 12-year-old building to be a sustainable move? Why not renovate another building closer to what it wants? Why not build from the ground up? Both options exist downtown, including a vacant city-owned lot less than three blocks away at SW Third and Taylor. If the company really wanted to get creative, it could occupy an under-utilized but grand work of architecture like the US Customs House, or at least a former warehouse in need of a rescue.

Steve Jobs himself coined the phrase, "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." In this case, the how-it-works of design would seem to include concern for using materials wisely, and how renovation is more sustainable than demolition and rebuilding.

Don't get me wrong: I am unequivocally on the side of Apple coming to Portland and building a great store, one with more size and architectural presence than its basement lair. There were a lot of disgruntled Apple supporters in 2005 who felt the city flubbed a great opportunity to bring the company's flagship to Northwest 23rd, of which I was included. Even so, Apple would be less of a company if it couldn't stand a little criticism, be it for their gargantuan Norman Foster-designed glass donut of a headquarters planned for Cupertino, or tearing down a building with decades of life just because it's across from the downtown mall. We hold Apple to this kind of standard more than perhaps any other American corporation becuase they have stood for great design and for more than the bottom line. And as great as this store may be, and as much as the company deserves an open invitation, Apple wouldn't be Apple unless we expect them to, as the company's adverb-avoiding former slogan used to go, "Think different."

Perhaps the most difficult challenge facing any architect is deciding on appropriate scale, mass and materials when contemplating a new building in a historic district.

A prime example is Portland’s own Skidmore-Old Town Historic District, where a committee of developers, property owners and preservationists convened by Mayor Sam Adams fought to a standstill last year over prospects for several “opportunity sites” (read: parking lots) in Old Town.

Property owners hoped to take advantage of building heights under the current zoning that would have let them build as high as 10 stories, or so. Historians and preservationists said the zoning rules were inappropriate for a historic district where most contributing historic buildings were four stories or fewer. The battle never got so far as the touchy subjects of materials or specific building designs.

Meanwhile, the Portland Development Commission and the Architectural Heritage Center have been storing historic cast-iron building remnants for decades, waiting for some consensus on how they should be re-used in downtown’s historic fabric.

An architect and academic who thinks he has the answers is Steven W. Semes, an associate professor at the University of Notre Dame who will speak in Portland on March 11 in talk and panel discussion hosted by the Historic Preservation League of Oregon. Semes is the author of “The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation,” a book that is stirring passions of preservationists and making some architects rethink how they should go about designing infill projects in historic districts.

Steven Semes

The contemporary conventional wisdom is that new buildings in historic districts should speak to their own time and place, and that new buildings shouldn’t look “old,” lest they confuse visitors about what is truly historic. Such confusion is sometimes called the “Disneyland effect.” Guidelines from the federal Department of the Interior, which administers the National Trust for Historic Preservation, state that new buildings should differentiate themselves from old.

Semes is chief advocate for a different approach. He believes that such “differentiation” should be subtle, and that new building should reflect the context of their surroundings. In short, he urges architects to use historic building forms while sending gentle signals that would tell a viewer when such buildings were erected.

Here are a couple paragraphs from Semes own internet blog, at traditional-building.com, that make his case:

Preservation authorities should promote “appropriateness.” I have proposed that the appropriate is the fitting and the exemplary. A new building or an addition is fitting when it intends to fit, rather than subvert, the character of the place and responds to local climate, materials, topography and building traditions. It is exemplary when it “sets a good example” for others to follow so that, over time, the character of the place will be preserved rather than diminished.

“Differentiating” new work from historic fabric is valid. But it should be subtle. This approach dates back to such 19th-century models as the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum, where restorers recomposed the surviving fragments of the Roman marble arch and completed the missing parts in similarly colored, but distinguishable, travertine. But the useful distinction between new and old materials must not prevent our seeing the monument as a whole. Similarly, managing a historic district, like curating an art collection, cannot succeed if you are only permitted to add to it things that do not belong there.

The HPLO, a state-wide preservation advocacy group, spent a whole year recently studying historic districts around Oregon, and drafted guidelines that it believes should be followed when reviewing infill projects in historic districts. In short, the HPLO came to much the same conclusion as Semes. It believes that new buildings should be similar in height and mass, and that “the district is the resource” in looking for design cues.

Semes will speak at 3 p.m. on March 11 at the UO/White Stag Building, 70 NW Couch St. A panel of architects developers and historians also will participate. Ticket prices are $20 for the general public, and $15 for members of the HPLO and the Architectural Heritage Center, Congress for New Urbanism-Cascadia and the International Network of Traditional Building Architects and Urbanish- USA. Admission for students is $8.

The little octagon-shaped buiding at NE 42nd & Sandy wasn’t a streetcar stop for very long. It was built in 1922, fifteen years after the Rose City Park line began in 1907. By 1935, the line was converted to buses. Over the ensuing years, it has housed a beauty salon, a dry cleaner and, since 1954, a hamburger stand.

All this I learned from randomly map-clicking on the Architectural Heritage Center’s new smart phone app, created with app developer Tagwhat to provide create histories for historic buildings all over Portland. (I actually viewed it as a plain old website on my desktop computer rather than on my phone.)

That hamburger stand and former streetcar stop? It’s Ogee arch at the entrance,is taken from Middle Eastern architecture, I learned. “Here the Middle Eastern influence is also seen in the masonry walls as well as the niches on either side of the doorway,” the app goes on. “The geometric wrought iron work is also typical of a Middle Eastern influence.”

“We’ve been working directly with Tagwhat on this app since the beginning of the year after I tinkered with it for some months last fall,” explains Val Ballestrem, the AHC’s education manager. “Our initial goal is to get at least 150 buildings, sites, neighborhoods, and other landmarks. This will include most of what was on our favorite Portland buildings list from 2009 plus many others. Eventually I could see hundreds more buildings added, but creating the content is a time consuming endeavor. We have an intern working on this initial round of content development, but he will be done by the end of the month.” Ah, the never-ending saga of under-funded nonprofits.

So far, just over 110 buildings have been loaded. These include brief building histories, images from AHC collections and from the digital collections of the University of Oregon and the Library of Congress, with the longer-term possibility of adding audio or video clips. Many of the tags also include links to outside sources such as an Oregon Encyclopedia article on architect Justus Krumbein. “It’s a great FREE app,” Ballestrem says. “It’s easy to use and should be of interest to locals and tourists alike.”

If the octagon streetcar stop’s history wasn’t enough, the Hollywood Theatre across the street of course is listed too (as are over 60 downtown buildings). Completed in 1926 from a design by Bennes & Herzog, the building receives some wry commentary.

“Molded glazed terra cotta is a wonderful material. You still see a number of glazed terra cotta buildings in downtown. For example, the Meier & Frank building and its white neighborhoods are clad in glazed terra cotta. This building is, of course, over the top. Starting at the top: finials (those things that point upward at the top level), round head opening with Keystone. (Second level ñ a trio of round headed arches, separated by composite pilasters and surmounted in the middle with a "’broken’ pediment-ñmeaning that the central arch does not have a triangular tympanum.”